Rebuild...ahead of schedule?
- Thread starter iowamcnabb
- Start date
How can it be a crap shoot when the odds at the top are higher than the odds at the bottom? A crap shoot would be if every position in the draft had the same odds of landing an all star. Or if the draft position was decided by random chance with no odds being better whether you're the worst team in the league or the champions.
The worst team in the league has the best odds of landing the #1 pick. Doesn't mean it's going to land the #1 pick every time but way more often than not, they're going to go #1. If it was a crap shoot, the NBA wouldn't put more balls for that team in the machine than the 2nd and 3rd place teams. They would be equal.
The draft is the same. The #1 pick has a higher chance of being an all star than the #5 pick. That's not a crap shoot nor random chance. That's playing the odds. You could possibly pick at 5 and beat my pick at 1 but if we played long enough, I'm guaranteed to beat you because I'll wind up having the bigger collection of better picks due to the odds of it.
http://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm
I couldn't find the actual percentages but here are some statistics based on draft positioning. It's not perfectly linear due to the fact that like you said, you can get good players outside of the top few picks but if you graphed it out, the graph would slope downward. If there was a crap shoot, the numbers would look basically the same for each position and the graph wouldn't have a slant to it. You have to play the odds here. The argument isn't that we can't land a good player further down the draft, it's that we have a better chance of landing one at the top. Just look at the drop off after the top 5. I want the odds in the top 5, not down in the teens.
The worst team in the league has the best odds of landing the #1 pick. Doesn't mean it's going to land the #1 pick every time but way more often than not, they're going to go #1. If it was a crap shoot, the NBA wouldn't put more balls for that team in the machine than the 2nd and 3rd place teams. They would be equal.
The draft is the same. The #1 pick has a higher chance of being an all star than the #5 pick. That's not a crap shoot nor random chance. That's playing the odds. You could possibly pick at 5 and beat my pick at 1 but if we played long enough, I'm guaranteed to beat you because I'll wind up having the bigger collection of better picks due to the odds of it.
http://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm
I couldn't find the actual percentages but here are some statistics based on draft positioning. It's not perfectly linear due to the fact that like you said, you can get good players outside of the top few picks but if you graphed it out, the graph would slope downward. If there was a crap shoot, the numbers would look basically the same for each position and the graph wouldn't have a slant to it. You have to play the odds here. The argument isn't that we can't land a good player further down the draft, it's that we have a better chance of landing one at the top. Just look at the drop off after the top 5. I want the odds in the top 5, not down in the teens.
Again, I'm not arguing that your odds are better when drafting higher. My end game in all of this is what you said all ready, you can find studs outside of the top 3 or top 5, just how you can draft a bust in the top 3. Wherever you draft it's not a given, it's really out of a franchises' hands from there because they've done their part in picking the player THEY feel can turn into a cornerstone. From there you give the reigns to the coaching staff and player development aspect of the franchise and hope they can make it work. It also includes the work ethic, skillset and drive of the player in order to be great.
I am not naive enough to say that I wouldn't want a higher chance at a draft pick. But, due to the circumstances we are usually faced with, which is never landing in the top 3, I am simply wanting to point out that the Kings DO NOT need to draft high in order to be successful again.
I am not naive enough to say that I wouldn't want a higher chance at a draft pick. But, due to the circumstances we are usually faced with, which is never landing in the top 3, I am simply wanting to point out that the Kings DO NOT need to draft high in order to be successful again.
I think one issue with fans is that we tend to lump each other into either or categories when it comes to where we stand on the whole tank/vets/odds thing, and it's not that black and white.
Just a few possible camps include but are not limited to:
1- Tank full bore do everything possible to have the worst record
2- Don't throw games as in #1- certain vets are fine if they are meant more for filling a hole and providing mentorship
3- Wants the vets signed who give the best chance for a playoff push next season, contracts and likelihood of getting deep into the playoffs be damned
Many more exist in between. I fall in around #2 at this stage of the rebuild. I will not advocate throwing games, but believe signing vets explicitly for making a playoff push next season would be too soon. I don't think Hill and ZBO were signed explicitly to make a playoff push.
Also, numbers and odds keep getting thrown around, but one that isn't is likelihood of guaranteeing you will have the worst record and thus a %25 chance at the first overall pick.
Joerger and crew are going to play to win, and even if they didn't, we can't guarantee getting a specific pick, or if we pick the right guy, or if he will live up to expectations.
Just a few possible camps include but are not limited to:
1- Tank full bore do everything possible to have the worst record
2- Don't throw games as in #1- certain vets are fine if they are meant more for filling a hole and providing mentorship
3- Wants the vets signed who give the best chance for a playoff push next season, contracts and likelihood of getting deep into the playoffs be damned
Many more exist in between. I fall in around #2 at this stage of the rebuild. I will not advocate throwing games, but believe signing vets explicitly for making a playoff push next season would be too soon. I don't think Hill and ZBO were signed explicitly to make a playoff push.
Also, numbers and odds keep getting thrown around, but one that isn't is likelihood of guaranteeing you will have the worst record and thus a %25 chance at the first overall pick.
Joerger and crew are going to play to win, and even if they didn't, we can't guarantee getting a specific pick, or if we pick the right guy, or if he will live up to expectations.
But the thing is if we think it would be good or even neccesary for Kings to draft a top talent, then it wouldnt be smart to place our bets to the situation where we draft that top talent at 7th. Only way one should settle for a 7-10 lottery position is that if the team allready has its superstar talent and only needs role players. That article stated that number one pick is an all star allmost 60% of the time but picks from 4-10 under 25% of the time, we shouldnt be so comfortable to say that we still can draft an all star at 8th. Its quite unlikely we draft an all star anywhere else but in top 3.
That other article (http://sports.sites.yale.edu/nba-draft-pick-value) demonstrated how important good lottery position is. Being third in lottery still isnt that bad but being 7th or lower and it gets very unlikely that the team could draft top talent.
Again its possible to draft a star mid lottery but its unlikely. You just cant plan on unlikely. When planning the future of the franchise, I wouldnt want to place bets on anything that is unlikely especially when we could affect those odds ourselves.
That other article (http://sports.sites.yale.edu/nba-draft-pick-value) demonstrated how important good lottery position is. Being third in lottery still isnt that bad but being 7th or lower and it gets very unlikely that the team could draft top talent.
Again its possible to draft a star mid lottery but its unlikely. You just cant plan on unlikely. When planning the future of the franchise, I wouldnt want to place bets on anything that is unlikely especially when we could affect those odds ourselves.
A bit anecdotal, perhaps, but here's another way to look ay it:
I'm pretty sure most of them weren't.
(MJ was 3rd pick... Just saying
)
(I know, of course, that the statistical likelihood of panning out to be a star dimminishes the further you go down the draft list. just arguing we shouldn't stress about it that much...)
- Browse back each draft (only as recent as 2012 or so, to be sure that everyone in there has already panned out)
- Mark the best player emerging out of the draft in retrospect, and
- Note if he was or wasn't a #1/#2 selection.
I'm pretty sure most of them weren't.
(MJ was 3rd pick... Just saying
)(I know, of course, that the statistical likelihood of panning out to be a star dimminishes the further you go down the draft list.
just arguing we shouldn't stress about it that much...)
Teams draft all-stars outside of the top 3 all the time. If the Kings have a chance to draft in the top 10, which has happened every season since 2008, it's on them to do their homework and that just hasn't been the case.
The only way we can affect the odds as a team is to tank or let the youth play, I'm convinced the team won't tank so they will give significant time to the young players and that will play itself out. From there, it's out of their hands because even giving yourself the best odds to win the lottery doesn't mean that the Kings will land a top 3 pick because let's face it, they just don't have that type of lottery luck like the Sixers and Cavaliers.
The only way we can affect the odds as a team is to tank or let the youth play, I'm convinced the team won't tank so they will give significant time to the young players and that will play itself out. From there, it's out of their hands because even giving yourself the best odds to win the lottery doesn't mean that the Kings will land a top 3 pick because let's face it, they just don't have that type of lottery luck like the Sixers and Cavaliers.
Signing Carter is a vote for Malachi and Bogdan indirectly. They could have went after Simmons with their space but chose a veteran mentor instead who can play spot minutes. The bet the Kings are making is Malachi and Bogdan are better players than Simmons, and they would rather have mentorship of Carter and veteran experience over adding to their young core with "youngish" player in Simmons. Coach Brad Stevens made the point that conventional positions are irrelevant in today's NBA and he categorizes his players into three groups: ball handlers, wings and bigs. Using this designation, we have:
Ball-Handlers
Hill
Fox
Mason
Bogdan
Wings
Buddy
Malachi
Temple
Jackson
Carter
Big
Willie
Skal
Z-Bo
Papa G
Koufos
Giles
If you look at team in this regard, the roster is fairly balanced. I put Bogdan in the ball-handler category, because I think he can be tremendous initiating and creating offense in the half court with interior passes and pick and roll action. He has a real knack for this whether you want to call him SG or PG or combo. I don't care. I think he is going to help his teammates get a lot of open shots.
Is there a way to hide all posts that have the word "tank" in them?
If we give the youngsters lots of minutes, we're going to lose a lot of games. Obviously with our youth movement, we're going to lose a lot of games this year. Maybe next year, too. But I refuse to call that "tanking."
I want to lose having watched my team play their hearts out, and knowing that they're getting better all the time.
If we give the youngsters lots of minutes, we're going to lose a lot of games. Obviously with our youth movement, we're going to lose a lot of games this year. Maybe next year, too. But I refuse to call that "tanking."
I want to lose having watched my team play their hearts out, and knowing that they're getting better all the time.
Yeah they do but as I have said countless times: Its unlikely to draft an all star if your pick is outside the top 3. Some team likely will do it in the next years draft but the odds on that team being Kings sucks. Thats all I'm saying. You cant base your strategy as a franchise on something so unlikely. So either you say you need to land a top prospect and get yourself in the position to do so or you say that its not that important to us and play your vets accordingly
Yeah I understand if thats your opinion. I just dont agree with it. But at least you dont argue how it really doesnt matter where we are on lottery so that means I can respect your opinion.
Yeah I understand if thats your opinion. I just dont agree with it. But at least you dont argue how it really doesnt matter where we are on lottery so that means I can respect your opinion.
No one is saying or thinking that the team will be playing the vets accordingly of any sort. The youth movement is in full effect and the front office realizes this. We know why the vets are here, you don't see teams throwing out 15 young players. That's not a formula for success.
I can go back even further to show you some of the players that have been drafted outside of the top 3 who turned out all right.
Karl Malone at 13
John Stockton at 16
Steve Nash at 15
Joe Dumars at 18
Dennis Rodman at 27
Clyde Drexler at 14
Alex English at 23
Nate Archibald at 19
Kobe at 13
Tony Parker at 28
Those were all star players of their era
So while it's unlikely to draft a all-star if you're not in the top 5, you best believe that there is star talent to be had even outside of the top 10 as you can see over the last two decades, despite the odds. If you live and die by the numbers, you're missing everything else that's going on around you. Numbers don't always tell the whole story, they are deceptive.
I can go back even further to show you some of the players that have been drafted outside of the top 3 who turned out all right.
Karl Malone at 13
John Stockton at 16
Steve Nash at 15
Joe Dumars at 18
Dennis Rodman at 27
Clyde Drexler at 14
Alex English at 23
Nate Archibald at 19
Kobe at 13
Tony Parker at 28
Those were all star players of their era
So while it's unlikely to draft a all-star if you're not in the top 5, you best believe that there is star talent to be had even outside of the top 10 as you can see over the last two decades, despite the odds. If you live and die by the numbers, you're missing everything else that's going on around you. Numbers don't always tell the whole story, they are deceptive.
At the end of the day, each team has to decide who are the best prospects in the draft. Often there is a consensus at the top, but not always. The higher the draft position, the higher odds that a team will draft the person they have at the top of the draft board. Sometimes getting the best player in the draft at pick 5 is luck, other times that team has the best basketball scouting and smarts. That team may have picked that player at pick 1 (which some would end up calling a "reach") if they had the confidence in their own draft board and the guts to do so; however, they still would have rather had pick 1 vs. pick 5 to assure they get their guy. It's all an art, mixed with more favorable odds....
Most of the points you are making are fine. It's your argument that is completely flawed. You agree that the odds of finding an all star in the top 5 are better than outside the top 5. We all agree that it's possible to find an all star anywhere in the first round.
We are arguing that drafting higher up in the order will give the Kings the best odds of landing an all star and the best odds of getting the team back in the playoffs. You're arguing that it does not matter because there is a chance that we could land an all star further down in the order. Our argument has the odds in our favor and yours has the odds against you. If you agree that the odds of finding an all star in the top 5 are better than outside the top 5, then your argument that it doesn't matter where you draft from because some all stars have been picked lower in the order isn't logical.
We are arguing that drafting higher up in the order will give the Kings the best odds of landing an all star and the best odds of getting the team back in the playoffs. You're arguing that it does not matter because there is a chance that we could land an all star further down in the order. Our argument has the odds in our favor and yours has the odds against you. If you agree that the odds of finding an all star in the top 5 are better than outside the top 5, then your argument that it doesn't matter where you draft from because some all stars have been picked lower in the order isn't logical.
There is a better approach than losing to maximize the chance of getting a high impact player. It's having a general manager that's better than his peers at evaluating talent and fit. Bob Meyers/Popavich/Ainge type. Give those guys a top pick and they'll probably get it right. They've also all found stars later in the draft. I think Vlade is slowly moving up into this group of elite evaluators. That's the key, moreso than having a high pick.
if a star doesn't emerge then i do see us being a top echelon team like the hawks from a few years back or the championship pistons. There is a lot of talent on this roster in the right positions and Dave is the right man to mold it all together.
I feel we absolutely have star potential in a few of the guys but i am confident then even if they dont quite pan out, we'll be able to get it done.
Everyone just needs to work right now and go hard.
I feel we absolutely have star potential in a few of the guys but i am confident then even if they dont quite pan out, we'll be able to get it done.
Everyone just needs to work right now and go hard.
And I can show you triple the amount of names that were drafted at those numbers and never became good players. Again, whats the point? Is your point that it is possible to draft all stars with lower picks? I already said that you possibly might draft an all star at 60th pick also. I have said many times that you can draft an all star at any pick but its unlikely if you are not at top 3 or top 5. Why do you even bother arguing against something that can be proved to you by showing the data collected troughout the years? You cant be right. What you can do is have an opinion that draft position is not important cause we have all the top pieces we need or its likely we get one via trade or free agency but you simply cant say that draft position is not important because someone sometime drafted a good player with low pick. It is possible to draft that but so unlikely (three out of four attempts will miss at the range of 4-10) that FO cant base any strategy on it. If it happens its a really happy coincidense.
Numbers tell you a lot. The bigger the time frame, the bigger the data available and simpler the question the more they tell. The way you use numbers allways depends on the situation. For example when evaluating next years draft, you have the data to tell you the average outcome on different picks and then you put it into perspective consulting the scouting staff about the strength of the draft class. But since we dont have a scouting team in here to consult, we have to rely on the average outcomes on different pick ranges if we want to speculate about our future. 10 months ahead we might know how deep the draft is, is there a one clear top prospect or is it like this years draft where top 5 all have reliable chance to be the best in that class. But we dont know that yet. We have statistical data to give us guidance on how the draft on avarege pans out. And in order to plan for the future we might as well learn what the history have tought us (the data collected from previous drafts) and plan according to that(assuming a top prospect is our priority).
I doesnt matter to me that much if you just say that in your opinion we dont need a top prospect in order to shine as a franchise. Or if you dont care to think about 3-4 years ahead and you just want to allways win as much as possible. Thats a conversation I much rather have. But arguing against history and statistics on a situation that is easy enough to turn into odds and statistical information is something that doesnt feel right to me.
Numbers tell you a lot. The bigger the time frame, the bigger the data available and simpler the question the more they tell. The way you use numbers allways depends on the situation. For example when evaluating next years draft, you have the data to tell you the average outcome on different picks and then you put it into perspective consulting the scouting staff about the strength of the draft class. But since we dont have a scouting team in here to consult, we have to rely on the average outcomes on different pick ranges if we want to speculate about our future. 10 months ahead we might know how deep the draft is, is there a one clear top prospect or is it like this years draft where top 5 all have reliable chance to be the best in that class. But we dont know that yet. We have statistical data to give us guidance on how the draft on avarege pans out. And in order to plan for the future we might as well learn what the history have tought us (the data collected from previous drafts) and plan according to that(assuming a top prospect is our priority).
I doesnt matter to me that much if you just say that in your opinion we dont need a top prospect in order to shine as a franchise. Or if you dont care to think about 3-4 years ahead and you just want to allways win as much as possible. Thats a conversation I much rather have. But arguing against history and statistics on a situation that is easy enough to turn into odds and statistical information is something that doesnt feel right to me.
What I can't argue is your statistical data. But that data ignores the context of the Kings political reality. Can the owner afford to continue to have down years? I don't know but I suspect he doesn't have as deep of pockets as was first led on. He owns a minority share but has controlling interest. I'm sure the minority owners, at least some of them, haven't been happy with his stewardship. At what point do they revolt?
These are the type of things your statistical data doesn't account for. What is the patience for the season ticket holders? I'm not but are you one? I could only imagine how they would feel about being told to pay full price while the actions of the team tells them next year is the year that matters. There is more than statistical number(s) on paper.
These are the type of things your statistical data doesn't account for. What is the patience for the season ticket holders? I'm not but are you one? I could only imagine how they would feel about being told to pay full price while the actions of the team tells them next year is the year that matters. There is more than statistical number(s) on paper.
I'm not sure that this is the argument being stated. I think the argument is that we already have 2/3 of our team as promising draft picks, several of which may, with mentoring, become stars at some point. We have one draft pick next year (at this time) that may be something good or could end up being Greg Oden or Pervis Ellison even at #1. Or it could be used in trade and the player there never dons a Kings uniform for a game. It's an unknown and one unknown draft pick is not worth sacrificing player development and building good morale by playing the right way and winning a few games along the way.
Unless we happen to trade for LBJ, we are guaranteed to lose the majority (possibly vast majority) of our games and have a good draft pick next year. This year we won the right amount of games to move up in the draft lottery; had we lost more we would have been stuck farther down. Part of it is, indeed, luck. Luck in the lottery and luck in picking a player that succeeds.
I'm tired of the never-ending rooting for losses at the end of each year to improve our one pick. We've got a whole slew of good first and second year players. Lets focus on them this year. A bird in the hand and all that.
Technically, yes, losing more games improves your opportunity chances at drafting a good player. We all know that. Some just feel that tanking a season to move up a couple spots in a draft may not be worth it, given that we saw this year alone:
Unless we happen to trade for LBJ, we are guaranteed to lose the majority (possibly vast majority) of our games and have a good draft pick next year. This year we won the right amount of games to move up in the draft lottery; had we lost more we would have been stuck farther down. Part of it is, indeed, luck. Luck in the lottery and luck in picking a player that succeeds.
I'm tired of the never-ending rooting for losses at the end of each year to improve our one pick. We've got a whole slew of good first and second year players. Lets focus on them this year. A bird in the hand and all that.
Technically, yes, losing more games improves your opportunity chances at drafting a good player. We all know that. Some just feel that tanking a season to move up a couple spots in a draft may not be worth it, given that we saw this year alone:
- The number 1 pick got traded because they thought the consensus #1 wasn't worth it.
- We moved up in the draft due to bouncing ping-pong balls.
- The player we wanted at #1 was also there at #5, so again, drafting well is more important than draft position (and in this case, the pick swap!) in many instances.
Last edited: